St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-28
ron AMERICANS ONLY.

The Large Tract of Real Estate
Called linnesOia TO be Occupied
by Only Citizens of Ihe United
States.
If the United States senate has received a
surprise in the Salisbury bill. requiring for
eign immigrants to have resided in the
United States five years and then to pass
successfully through all examination as to
their knowledge of the English language.
before they can become naturaliZed, the
Minnesota senate received a similar one
yesterday, when Senator Edwards intro
duced his Dill to restrict the ownership of
real estate i'll Minnesota to American citi-
Zens only. 1t was simply read and re-
tered, and while the senate looked upon it
with open-mouthed establishment nothing
was said, for the day OF discussion is not
until the bill reaches committee of the
whole.
That it shall be unlawful" the bill COM
mences, for any person or persons not citi-
zenS OF the United States, or who have not de-
clared their intention to become su IN citi-
zens, or any corporation not created by or
under the laws of the United States, or of
some state or territory OF the United States,
TO hereafter acquire, hold or own real estate
etc, IN this state, except such as may be
acquired by devise or inheritance or in good
faith IN the ordinary course of justice in the
collection of debts hereafter created. Pro-
vlded, that the prohibition of this section
shall not apply in such cases. as the right to
hold lands in the United States secured
by existing treaties TO the citizens or subjects
OF foreign countries, which rights shall con-
tinue to exist so long as such treaties are in
force
Thus the first section explains what the
effect of the bill will be, viz: American lands
for Americans only; absolute necessity of
naturalization to possess such land rights
of aliens according TO existing treaties to be
respected. But the true intent of the per-
son who drafted the bill is best indicated
by the following. showing what its effect
would be upon the great rich railroad, real
estate and investment SyndicateS which
may not be citizens of the United States.
but may be developing the resources of the
state by the investment of foreign capital:
Section =. That no corporation or associa-
ton. more than 20 per cent. of the stock of
which may be owned b. any person or per-
incorporation or corporations, association or
associations, not citizens of the United States
shall hereafter acquire. or shall hold or own
any real estate hereafter acquired in this
state.
Sec. 8. That no corporation other than
those organized for the construction or oper-
alton OF railways, canals or turn pixies shall
acquire, hold or own over 5000 acres of land
TO be hereafter acquired in this state; and no
railroad. canal or turnpike corporation shall
hereafter acquire, hold or own lands so here
after acquired in this state other than may
be necessary for the proper operation of its
railroad, canal or turnpike except such lands
as may have been granted to it by act of con-
gress or OF the legislature of this state.
Here, then, is the true purpose of the bill
1t is to prevent railroad companies from OBJ
tanning foot of land other than is actually
needed for tracks, depotS, freight houses,
side tracks, yards, etc, and it aims to pre-
vent the much-fought land grant system
from being continued, for while the bill
does not NEEDLE with the grants already re-
ceived, it excerpts only ''such lands as have
been granted. ETC." The really startling
features of the bill, however, is contained
in the concluding section, which says all
land acquired contrary to the provisions of
this bill is to be forfeited to the state. The
section reads:
That all property acquired held, or owned
in violation OF the provisions of this act shall
be forfeited to the state, and it shall be the
duty of the attorney general to enforce such
forfeiture by due process of law.
Doubtless the bill, which has been very
loosely drawn, and was handed, so Senator
Edwards says, to the introducer, was not
carefully read by Col. EdW ards. or he
might have seen that a shrewd lawyer
would make profitable use of the frequently
recurring phras es hereafter acquired"
ito be hereafter acquired, - which had been
inserted to prevent The bill from applying
to any land so acquired i'll the past. 1t is
question whether the bill should attempt to
NEEDLE with property already acquired
whether it will not be dead letter so far
as it applies to present transactions, and
n
to the future, and as the future cannot be
brought into litigation, such a law, if made
must always be nothing more than dead
letter